While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

"I am very interested to read the letters from supporters of President Barack Obama telling those who are unhappy with the Nov. 6 election results to "get over it because he won" and then express how offended they are that some "don't respect the office.""

Ok, here's the difference.

The teachers/democrats had a policy dispute with the governor and protested an actual legislative item.

The Republicans just HATE the man who is our president. They don't hate the policy, they hate the MAN who they call an arrogant socialist, Kenyan, Obumbler usurper in chief. They even are clueless enough to run "white Obama" as their nominee for President. If republicans could get over their knee jerk rejection of anything the president proposes or endorses, I could believe that you actually gave a damn about the country.

Taxman is 180 degrees from the truth. Conservatives hate the policy. It started the day he bowed down to a foreign leader and it continues through the gradual destruction of the US economy and generational theft by devaluing the dollar. Toss in his blatant disregard for the Constitution he swore to uphold and it's obvious to those who can reason why conservatives are against him.

I consider Obama a good husband and a fine father to his two adorable daughters. The fact remains that we all get the president 51% deserve.

Agreed. And this man has flipped the values of our country upside down. His policies will set our country back. And his total disregard for 4 countrymen in Benghazi was a topper. Our military prides itself on "no one left behind." People were told not to even go and defend the. No, this man, who blamed Bush for making our country look bad to others, has helped make our once proud country a laughing stock around the world.

CommonSense, You didn't see conservatives disrupting Obama at events he was at unlike the people in this state that acted like 2 year olds and decided to interrupt things that the Governor was at like an event held for the special Olympics?

WereNumber40 - Yesterday at 9:40 PM:"They hated him the day he was elected, primarily because he s black. At least that is what all my conservative friends tell me."**********************So you believe that a couple of your conservative friends are representative of millions of other conservatives? With logic like that I can see why you're an Obama supporter.

birthers are bitter and filled with bile?Perhaps if the "most transparent administration" would give up some factual details about his past, those bile-filled birthers would disperse.But alas, his adoring media refuses to take him to task. Not one college rom-mates, no transcripts. Heck, any idea who the groomsmen were at the wedding?

Taxidea taxus - Today at 8:53 AM:"Do you not know how security clearances work? Common sense, man."************************Considering Obama's past associations with terrorists, communists, felons, radicals and a whole bunch of other nefarious characters; Obama wouldn't have been able to get a security clearance to give tours of the White House, and now lives there....only in America.

Let me ask all of you Waukesha County Neocons this: would you hate President Colin Powell as much as you hate President Barack Obama? Is it really his policies and his political affiliation, or is it just his "Muslim" middle name and the color of his skin?

playergotgame - Today at 10:31 AM:"Let me ask all of you Waukesha County Neocons this: would you hate President Colin Powell as much as you hate President Barack Obama? Is it really his policies and his political affiliation, or is it just his "Muslim" middle name and the color of his skin?"***************************People that like to play the race card are normally the real racists.

You, MillerMan, are one of the few that feels that way, I fear. I believe you. I just know from experience that you're in the minority based upon my own personal experience.

I'm half white and half black. If I'm racist, I would have to hate myself, which I don't. My father is black, my mother is French Canadian. I grew up speaking English and Spanish fluently and French passably. I dressed like the white kids. I kept my hair short. I wore glasses. I speak in complete sentences. If you called me on the telephone you would never, ever believe that I'm black because I don't "sound" like the stereotypical black person that you hear on television or in the MSM.

Still, every time I visit someplace like Mequon or Brookfield, I'm treated differently by MOST people because I have brown skin. It doesn't matter if I wear a suit or if I'm with white people.

You've never felt that way and I realize that it is hard to fathom for you, but trust me, it happens ever day. Not every white person is this way--but many are. Much of it is because of what people see on television and because of what stereotypes have become. That's largely the fault of the black community, I admit.

Still, racism is pervasive in many elements of society and I think that anyone arguing that it doesn't have much to do with SOME people's hatred of President Obama is terribly naive.

No matter what your personal experiences may be, the simple truth is that Conservatives and Republicans dislike President Obama because of the policies he pursues. Nothing more.

When some on the Left shout out that we oppose him because of his race, it distracts from the discussion. And it is offensive to assume such nonsense.

I don't know if Conservatives would have such an objection over a President Collin Powell. I know Conservatives would embrace a President Condalezza Rice (dispite her abortion stance).

How can we become a colour blind society if so many on the Left keep making up racist statements? How can we become a colour blind society if so many on the Left continue to talk about President Obama's race?

I believe arguing that opposition to Obama is even partly due to racism is naive.

I have a question that could be potentially toxic to ask others, but I am hopeful it won't be here. If voting AGAINST someone simply because of the colour of their skin is wrong, isn't it just as wrong to vote FOR someone because of the colour of their skin?

Voting for someone BECAUSE of the color of his/her skin is just as wrong, you are absolutely right.

Black people who voted for Obama because he's black are difficult to determine, though, because over 90% of black people are registered Democrats. A more interesting experiment would be if the Republicans picked a black candidate like Condi Rice. If 90% of black people voted for her, we would be assured that they were voting for her because of the color of her skin.

I'm not making excuses, but if you look back, John Kerry got 88% of the black vote in 2004. Obama got 96% in 2004 and 93% in 2012. That's not a huge disparity in the grand scheme of the election. We're talking about a 5-8% swing in what makes up less than 12% of the electorate.

How many of the six million Mormons in America voted for Romney because he's one of them? Is that any better or worse?

I am glad that we can all agree that Ms. Rice would be an exceptionally high quality candidate for President.

I don't agree with all of her views, but she's sort of beyond reproach in terms of her experience, intellect, and ability to be the adult in the room among the politicos.

I would much sooner see Ms. Rice in the White House than Hillary Clinton. That's not because she's black, it is because she's smarter, more capable, and I think that she would be a better leader purely because she's very moderate.

The Republicans could use someone like her to curry favor with minorities and women. They would be smart to convince her to run in 2016.

I have been a longtime supporter of Condi Rice. When I had the good fortune to meet with Governor Romney earlier this year, I urged him to select Condi Rice for his VP pick. She has strong foreign policy experience to help balance Romney's economic strengths. And she's not a politician.

The fact that she is black and a woman is simply a bonus. Qualifications matter most for me.

The Republicans should have nominated Ms. Rice this year. She would have bested Mr. Obama handily. He was a very weak incumbent and the only reason that the Republicans didn't triumph is because they chose an even weaker candidate in Mr. Romney. He managed to be even more polarizing than Mr. Obama. That's a tall task.

I hope that both sides of the aisle moderate their views a bit. President Obama is not an absolutely crazy liberal, but he could compromise a bit more on a few matters, to be sure. The Republicans could do the same. All Washingtonians would be wise to break away from Grover Norquist, who is nothing but a shill. Revenue needs to come from somewhere, and I'm saying that with the full expectation of paying more in taxes myself so long as there is some major reform on entitlements and defense spending gets a relative, reasonable haircut.

One thing I will say about Mr. Boehner is that he does seem willing to compromise. I know that many conservatives consider this a flaw, but I think that he represents the best interests of his constiuents and that more members of both parties should display this kind of spirit. Devoid of such compromise, DC is nothing but a bad reality television show.

Sundae; (as well as playerlostgame); Had Condi Rice run for president or had Gov Romney chosen her as his VP, the democrats would have done a "Sarah Palin" on her big time. I would say that a large majority of conservatives would vote for her based on her credentials rather than her skin color. That is the major difference. The democrats hate conservative minorities and would attack her and her record unmercifully.

Saying "revenue needs to come from somewhere" misses the basic point. The federal debt is the result of a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

Throughout the eight years of President Clinton, federal spending was $8,000 per capita measured in current dollars. Now it is $11,500 per capita. That's a 44% increase in spending per capita measured in inflation adjusted dollars.

Until Washington comes to grips with this and restores sanity, we should never ever consider taxing someone more. If we want to rein in debt, let's return to Clinton era spending.

I absolutely concur that spending is out of whack, which is why I specifically mentioned the two largest items in the Federal budget; entitlements and defense spending. Those two items need serious reform.

That said, just like losing weight is best achieved by the twofold recipe of diet and exercise, the only sensible solution to the debt/deficit is a combination of spending cuts *and* increased tax revenues.

Even many Republicans agree that some of those taxes need to happen--like increasing, over time, the cap on SS wages, graduating the age for SS/Medicare benefits to catch up to the rising life expectancy, etc. Call those what you may, but they amount to additional taxes. I'm not just talking about increased income taxes--which, for the record, I think are a bad idea.

I may be left leaning, but I'm actually all for lower income taxes and the institution of a national VAT tax, which more fairly distributes the burden. It is also much more difficult to avoid.

Letter writer Kathy King - "Many of the abortions done after 20 weeks in Wisconsin and elsewhere are due to the diagnosis of severe, often lethal, fetal birth defects."

I find it very hard to believe that there are all that many abortions being performed due to a diagnosis of "severe, often lethal, fetal birth defects." I suspect that King is greatly exaggerating in order to thwart any type of legislation that would make it more difficult for women to murder their children as a form of birth control.

Liberals practically break their arms patting themselves on the back at how compassionate they supposedly are, but yet they think nothing of ripping up the body of an innocent baby as a form of birth control. If that's their version of compassion, I'd hate to see what their version of cruelty is.

I surely wouldn't want to be in anyone's shoes that has to stand before the Lord on judgement day and look Him in the eye and give an account as to why they thought it was OK to murder the innocent, defenseless babies that He breathed life into to. Eternity could be a little painful for the pro-deathers.

The reason you don't believe the OB-GYN's letter about birth defects and abortion is because it doesn't match your preconceived ideas on the topic. A little cognitive dissonance is good for you. No worries.

Thank you, macormack. And for kimberly luedke - Just who makes the decision which "birth defects" are worthy of killing the little one? Who decides which "birth defect" is bad enough to rip the baby out of the womb and kill it? No arms? Hairlip? Who decides? People live highly productive lives with supposed "dabilitating birth defects." Birth defects are simply another excuse to keep the abortion mills running. No one has authority to end the lives of these little ones.

I'm honestly curious about your position. You make an absolute claim that no one has authority to end of lives of these little ones. Are you specifically referring to only birth defects? Do you take the same position if the situation were twelve doctors all agreed that keeping the baby would kill the mother? Honest question.

CommonSenseandLogic - Yesterday at 12:08 AM:"hmetzger... I tell you who shouldn't decide... the government..."*****************Interesting that the left is in favor of the government deciding everything else.

There have always been and always will be safe abortions available to those with money. It's only the poor and middle class that will be affected by any laws. Please let the mother and doctor make decisions that will affect only them.

Granny speaks the truth. There will always be flights to Canada and private doctors to get rid of unwanted pregnancies for the rich. Republicans have been doing that for years and covering up "mistakes" by their sons and daughters. They just don't want poor (and black) people to have the same, affordable options.

But those decisions don't affect only them. Those decisions affect the unborn child and the father as well.The problem, in a nutshell, is that abortion should never, ever be used as a method of birth control. I'd go so far as to to say that abortion should never be elective surgery, it should be used only in cases where there is a threat to the life of the mother. Even then, the mother may chose to sacrifice herself for the well-being of her child.The emotional and physical side-effects of abortions are so deeply rooted and traumatic that I think we, as a nation, take this procedure far too lightly.

Jack maga... interesting that since my comment seems pro choice... you assume I fit into one box that you labeled liberal... that's what makes you an idiot... sorry that wasn't nice. That's what makes you unintelligent and rigid in your comments and thinking... the assumption that people clearly fit into one of two world views and that yours is absolutely always right... wtf

CommonSenseandLogic - Today at 1:11 PM:"Jack maga... interesting that since my comment seems pro choice... you assume I fit into one box that you labeled liberal... that's what makes you an idiot..." ****************Actually methinks it is you that may have been left on the tilt-a-whirl a tad too long as a baby. My assessment of your political leaning was based upon 256 of your previous comments contained in your profile. You "assumed" I based my opinion on your latest comment [typical nitwit logic]. I can't help but ask did your friends pick your moniker [commonSenseandLogic]? Kinda like tall people being called shorty, bald people called curly, obese people called tiny, etc.

Bikers should be following the rules. However, the downside of a biker not following the rules is much harsher for the biker than the car driver. You might say a biker will pay the price when he doesn't follow the rules. However, a vehicle is much heavier and can do more damage. Thus, when I am irresponsible in my car I can do much more damage to another biker than he can do to me. With more authority comes more responsibility. Likewise, there are many more rules truck drivers must follow than car drivers- simply because they have the potential for causing more damage. I'd rather have limited enforcement resources directed in a most effective manner. I don't want a squad car hiding behind Mom's Bakery Shop at $100/hr waiting to catch a biker not stopping fully at a stop sign.Besides, how many bicyclists can there be in Tomah all riding down the same street at the same time backing up traffic for two blocks?

I have never seen an adult bicycle rider obey a stop sign or stop light unless they have a small child with them. As a pedestrian, I have had several near-misses when crossing in marked crosswalks, because a bike rider was blowing the light and watching for cars not people. The law in Milwaukee also states that no one over 10-years-of-age may ride on public sidewalks, another frequently broken rule. It's true that a car can do much worse damage than a bike, but the rules still apply, and if I injure or kill that bicyclist, even if not my fault, it's something I will have to live with for the rest of my life. The police need to start enforcing these laws at least downtown.

I drive on the Menomonee River Pkwy. very often as I live a block away. The bicyclists that do not obey traffic laws far outnumber those that do. I really wonder about the parents that disobey these laws while they are out for a ride with their children. What does that teach the kids about obeying laws, not to mention teaching them some very unsafe habits. Your color coordinated helmet will not help much if you are hit by a car because you blew a stop sign. Also, it is state law to have operating lights on your bike at night. That is just common sense, besides being the law.

He doesn't provide a reference so I don't know which "scientists" Beaumier is referring to that are telling us that the earth cannot sustain our materialistic lifestyle (as is so often the case with the-sky-is-falling alarmists, I suspect that Beaumier is just making it up), but in spite of the doom-and-gloomer's dire predictions that life as we know it on this planet will be ending soon, the sun comes up every day and we just seem to go and on, and in fact man is living longer today than ever before, so how bad could it be?

Oh sure, there is definitely a place for being good stewards of the environment, but like I said man is living longer than ever, which would tell me that the environment isn't nearly as fragile as the alarmists would have us to believe, so to ruin the economy with the oppressive rules and regulations that are being forced upon people and businesses by an out of control government is actually doing much more harm than good... if you look around you I think you'll find that poverty is causing far more suffering, and even death, to the human race than a materialistic lifestyle is.

I'll take the alarmists seriously when they start putting their money where their mouths are and cut back and curtail their own lifestyles to reflect their supposed concern for the environment. Until that happens, I'll take anything that they have to say with a grain of salt.

And from you TaxTax, we love getting the pro-communist, screw-the-world devil worshipping Satanist perspective. BTW, no where in macks post do I see any reference to Christianity. So your assumptions would be as honest as mine is of yours, right?

For a "hardcore bible banger" his post seems fairly reasonable and straight-forward. And, devoid of any biblical references. But of course name calling and insults could never be considered your forte, could they.

Capitalism in its present form depends on a growing population and the ever expanding extraction and use of natural resources. As the earth has limited space and resources, Capitalism in is present form is unsustainable and doomed to failure. We are seeing the signs of this with a national and worldwide debt that continues to grow exponentially to the point were there is not enough money in the world to pay it off.

"if you look around you I think you'll find that poverty is causing far more suffering, and even death, to the human race than a materialistic lifestyle is".

We over produce and over consume, and It is our materialistic life style that causes poverty in third world countries were we take their resources to perpetuate consumerism in the first world.

I'm not saying I'm anti-capitalist, I'm just saying capitalism in its current form is unsustainable in the long term. It is obvious communism does not work. Our brains are essentially wired the same as they were when we were hunter- gatherers. We don't need to keep reproducing at a rate before modern medicine and agriculture. We must get beyond the "what do I need now to survive" thinking which disregards long term consequences to our actions.

I'm totally not seeing why capitalism relies on an expanding population. There's plenty of capitalist countries with little population growth. Ponzi schemes like social security depend on an ever expanding population. The real estate industry depends on a ever expanding population. But capitalism itself?

And our materialistic lifestyle in no way causes poverty in the third world. Its not like we're over there stealing their raw materials or their cheap labor. We buy both at market rates. Free trade has its problems but its helped the third world more than its helped anyone. Are you trying to say that by entering into free trade with richer countries the poorer countries citizens have to pay higher prices (the world market price) for exportable domestic goods which thus hurts their living standards? Its true that if some place like Angola, for example, were to stop exporting oil that the local oil prices (and hopefully gas prices if they even have a refinery in Angola) would drop. But they'd be forgoing all sorts of stuff acquired from overseas in order to keep their gas cheap. It would be a major net loss to them.

Thanks, Dr. Kathy King, for your interesting an informative letter. But I would hope that, instead of conversing with lawmakers, one-at-a-time, in your office, you might instruct groups of legislators by appearing before them in formal hearings. And to continue to inform us in the lay-public. As you have done so nicely here.

I hope, too, that you will refrain from “debate” with the know-nothings. Clearly, you do a fine job of laying out the facts in your area of expertise. That, and only that, is precisely what is needed. Please persist. Your voice needs to continue to be heard. By those who are willing to listen.

The religious zealots, as we understand, know things that just ain’t so. And promulgate those falsehoods – often unknowingly, in their faithful simplicity – just because they want those faux facts to be true.

A case in point involves Sen. Jon Kyl’s [R, Az] assurance to the True Believers that 95% of Planned Parenthood’s activities involve abortions. When, in fact, quite the opposite is the case.

As you know better than I, 95% of its activities have nothing to do with abortive procedures; rather, PP provides invaluable screenings and treatments to needy women and girls: important rudimentary healthcare to head off serious medical problems down the road.

Anyway, thanks again for your timely letter. And please continue to inform us: people like me who know nothing of medicine, but who admire the selflessness of healthcare professionals like you.

It’s always nice to read tutored positions, rather than the stale trash of the enthusiastic sillies.

"So was Paine - consistently sent packing."*****************And consistently returning. I think he's back but he hasn't made a full blown appearance - he's still smarting from that last whupping he took.

I bet "Right-to-Life" does some adoption counseling. If they added per-natal care or some other health services, I'm sure da bee would be fine with taxpayer dollars going to them because he's so consistent.

Of course he won't respond because it would be dancing and it's way easier to call people names and dismiss them than answer tough questions.

da bee, no offense, but it fascinates me that you're so clueless as to how little you're respected on this forum, yet you come back time after time after time to state opinions that nobody takes seriously. I mean those of your own left-wing extremist ilk won't even come to your defense here on the forum, so what does that tell you?

But I have a theory - Godless, amoral Democrats for the most part have no shame and in their world the ends justifies the means and they'll do and say just about anything to promote the disease of Liberalism, and because they have no shame, when they do things like lie, or be a hypocrite, or cheat at the polls, or use partisan judges to legislate from the bench, or tear up the capital, or disrupt Special Olympics events, or murder their children as a form of birth control, or look like a fool on the forums, it means very little to them that their behavior is grotesque and extremist, because in their world the ends justifies the means.

Whadya think, da bee, am I on target about you having no shame and little sense of right and wrong? Or am I just being a silly and enthusiastically propagating uneducated stale trash?

Mary E - Today at 8:21 AM:"Your comment "me who know nothing" sums it up nicely!!!!"********************As a newcomer to this forum you will soon learn that our resident blowhard normally takes a thousand characters or more to say nothing.

Gary Johnson 2016 - Today at 12:57 PM:"An then there are those whose heads whistle when the wind blows."**************************Actually, I beelieve they get a group discount on the purchase of ear muffs.

Gary Johnson 2016 - Today at 12:57 PM:"An then there are those whose heads whistle when the wind blows."***************************I wonder if you were to put your ear next to their ear....would you hear the ocean?

sievemann - Today at 12:55 PM:And some of them take many fewer characters. After typing a complete sentence, they have sit down and cool off after expending all of that profound thought!**********************************Actually it was two sentences....kinda like your brilliant retort.

"I also wonder if he is aware of the fact that our $16 trillion national debt doesn't include the amount that the federal government owes to the Social Security Trust Fund.

Let's face it: Our once great nation is now in a state of fiscal bankruptcy."

Exactly.

The $16 trillion does not include the trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities - in 2010 Medicare added $1.8 trillion in new unfunded liabilities and Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations. The total for unfunded liabilities is at least $61.6 trillion.

No one is talking about about actually cutting the size and scope of government - they are just talking about slowing the never-ending growth pattern. Taking more money out of the economy (higher taxes) won't do anything to reduce the deficit if spending continues on the path it is going. And if you can't even cut the deficit, cutting the debt is impossible.

My electric bill is not a benefit promised to millions of people that has no revenue assigned to it.

"This is the dumbest argument out there, especially when you NEGLECT TO PROVIDE the corresponding revenue over the same time period."

The dumbest argument out there is your argument that future revenue has anything to do with what is unfunded now. You don't understand what an unfunded liability is, do you? The federal government has $62 trillion of promises with nothing backing them.

In regard to Lou Stadler's letter telling us that America is in the state of fiscal bankruptcy, it's sad that Democratic politicians have such little understanding of how an economy works that they're expending all their energies attacking the debt problem by raising taxes. The only problem with that little scenario is that, at most, raising taxes will contribute roughly $95 billion a year to the Feds' coffers, so let's do a little math, shall we you clueless Democrats? Under the Obama regime the yearly deficit has been running roughly a trillion dollars a year, so subtract the $95 billion in tax revenues from the trillion, and you come up with roughly a $900 billion yearly shortfall... are you kidding me?

And when you subtract the $95 billion from the roughly $16 trillion (and growing) debt that is owed, you come up with a $15.9 trillion shortfall. Hel-LO, is there anybody home in the Liberal's craniums? And history shows that tax increases hurt the economy, so the $95 billion tax revenues will not be sustainable, which will mean that tax increases will contribute even less to paying down the debt than the Paul Krugmans of this world would suppose. It's insanity.

Democrats are supposed to be really smart, but it's amazing to me that the Democratic faithful are so stupid as to militantly support political leaders that are leading them down the path of destruction. With poor judgement like that, I think one can confidentially say that Godless Liberalism truly is a cancer that needs to be wiped out if we're to have any chance of surviving as a nation.

Actually, Mac... a combination of increased taxes and decreased spending over time is needed to reduce the deficit to acceptable levels...math... good times... militantly support... path of destruction... Godless Liberalism... cancer... heaven help us all? nothing like overdramatic ridiculous incendiary rhetoric to spur the conversation... geez

Mac - you forgot one important component to your equation. Interest. At the current low interest rates, the $95 billion won't even pay the current interest, which means even if we capped spending on our programs to the level of our annual revenues and raised the taxes as proposed, we would still be going further in debt just on the interest. And that number would grow larger still if/when interest rates rise.

Obama claims that 90% of the deficit is due to Bush, and obviously this isn't the case. However, the charts and analysis in this article are helpful to understand that we don't have just a spending problem.

The Bush tax cuts were destructive to a nearly balanced budget, and they need to be phased out.

Tax - Let's pretend that I grant you that only 50% of the current deficit is Obama's (I don't agree with that premise, but for the sake of argument let's pretend). Isn't this the same President Obama who as a candidate chastised Bush as immoral and unpatriotic for his credit card spending? Are you then saying that Obama is immoral and unpatriotic? Is Obama judging his own work that way? So even at the bare minimum which you want to push off to Obama he has a spending problem by his and your own admission.

rock solid - Today at 7:57 AM:"Mac - you forgot one important component to your equation. Interest. At the current low interest rates, the $95 billion won't even pay the current interest, which means even if we capped spending on our programs to the level of our annual revenues and raised the taxes as proposed, we would still be going further in debt just on the interest. And that number would grow larger still if/when interest rates rise."****************It has been estimated that by the year 2019 the interest on our debt will exceed our defense budget.

vpotter - Today at 9:11 AM:"Maybe the answer is to just go bankrupt, wipe the slate clean, and start over."**********Brilliant idea. However you might want to consider the ramifications. First our country's credit rating would take a major hit which would trigger a whole bunch of negative reactions. The U.S. dollar would collapse which would result in a severe increase in the cost of all products and services.The housing market would crash further as credit would become nearly impossible to obtain. Savings would be wiped out due to inflation and the collapse of the stock market as well as the real estate market. Companies would be crushed because consumers wouldn't have any money to purchase their products, and there wouldn't be any credit available for them to operate.As more and more companies went bankrupt the number of people unemployed would skyrocket. All things considered, you may want to reconsider your idea of wiping the slate clean and starting over.

sievemann - Today at 12:51 PM:"Didn't someone recently get defeated in some election offering his opinion to let the auto industry go bankrupt? I have to go wash my Mittens!"***********************Knock, knock.....anyone home? GM went bankrupt in June, 2009 and Chrysler went bankrupt in April, 2009. Obama did let the auto industry go bankrupt. The only difference is Obama was more concerned with placating the UAW union at the expense of the shareholders, bondholders, and the taxpayers.

What is the pro-life goal? Are you somehow concerned that we aren't having enough children as a country? Are you concerned that we don't have enough children in broken homes? Do you need more pawns to serve in the front lines of the military? Are you under the impression that having 1 abortion somehow eliminates one from ever having children again? Do you not feel that government is interfering enough in your life?

If you're actually pro-life, then why don't y'all patrol the streets of the North side of Milwaukee on weekend nights? Over 100,000 innocent Iraqis died in our most recent war, but I heard NOT ONE pro-lifer give a damn about them.

Saving unborn embryos only to toss them into a world where you want to crush them economically makes no sense. Start thinking LONG TERM, folks.

Also, here's a story showing that the abortion rate has dropped to its lowest level in a decade:

In this economy, the sad truth is that for many impoverished youth, the only employment available is the military. But, be that as it may, it still comes down to anti -abortion protesters usually support war, and the death penalty, and don't give a damn about the living conditions of the baby once it's born, all they want is to force their will on the mother.

Granny------------If it is a truth, and I'mnot saying oit is, why is it a "sad truth"?

The military is a strong, viable alternative to regular civilian employment. Free health and dental care, free housing, reduced prices and no taxes on purchases at military bases, military discounts galore, educational opportunities and more.

Further, many civilian employers actually prefer to hire people with a military background because they have a good work ethic. They know how to be at work on time and ready to go and have a "can do" attitude.

The military and athletic prowess are often seen as the only viable avenues out of poverty.

That disparages neither the military nor athletic success.

The difference, however, is what comes "after" the military or time spent in college.

If a young man or woman spends a career in the military and leaves after 20 or 30 years, that's generally considered a successful career by most accounts. Similarly, entering a stable, middle class private sector career path after a 3-4 year military enlistment is considered successful.

Young men and women who are dishonorably discharged from the military or who leave the military disenfranchised and hop from one low wage job to another for years, however, are not exactly society's definition of "successful" by more accords.

Athletes who graduate from college and land good jobs are successes. Athletes who fail to graduate often do not find their way in life and often revert to their old neighborhood and fall into old, bad habits. This is even true of some professional athletes who have abbreviated careers.

The military is an absolutely viable way to better one's life. It was the path to a college education for my father and for me. I wouldn't be where I am in life without it. I did not grow up in "the ghetto" but it was a path to a more disciplined life and it paid for college so that I could start my professional life without the burden of college loan debt, and for that, I am forever grateful.

Dale tells no lies. You only find Army recruiters in not-so-nice urban places and small towns nowadays, and college basketball recruiting is almost always done through the AAU channel to get kids to prep and suburban schools--or Rufus King, which might as well be private.

The TaxiMan seems to suggest that our dear, pro-life Republicans yearn to have more activist judges on the bench. You know: judges who will ignore or “nullify” the settled law of Roe v. Wade. Them damn “lib” Republicans! Who want our judges to make law from the bench!

And another thing: TaxiMan does indeed make reference to “…pawns [who] serve in the front lines of [our] military.” For shame! Well, speaking as a former pawn, I, too, take extreme umbrage. I am crestfallen and downright dismayed. I now have sweat poring out my pores. Sir, I resemble your statement.

sievemann - Today at 12:48 PM:"Oooooh...Republican and scientific in the same sentence. Oil and water to go!"*******************Wow...what a witty retort! Better go take a nap after thinking that one up.

playergotgame - Today at 12:25 PM:"I don't understand. You can't kill a fetus. It isn't alive from a legal or medical standpoint."*************************Maybe you missed school the day science was being taught; but life begins at conception. A fetus has a beating heart 21 days after conception, together with other functioning organs.

CCS, Then answer the previous post as to how someone can be convicted of murder of and unborn child. Conviction for murder is pretty legal stuff. Or is the baby alive in some cases prior to birth but not in other cases and who decides this?

I think that the rightists win this debate. It's very odd to suggest that a human fetus isn't alive throughout its term of gestation. [Perhaps the leftists' claim is that the fetus is not capable of living independently of its mother or life-sustaining machines. But that's a very different matter.]

Anyway, the legal aspects of this matter need expert discussion. My untutored opinion (for what it's worth) is that nobody has been found culpable in a criminal court for the murder of a human fetus. For murder (in its three degrees) is a crime that involves the taking of a PERSON's life. And criminal courts do not give "person status" to a human fetus (witness the fact that the taking of the life of a fetus is not deemed a murder). Otherwise put: in criminal courts fetuses are not considered to be human beings (or "persons").

However, the goings-on in civil court are rather different. There are civil consequences to the taking of the life of a fetus.

da bee - Today at 3:56 PM: "However, the goings-on in civil court are rather different. There are civil consequences to the taking of the life of a fetus."*********************CIVIL CONSEQUENCES??!! Tell that to Scott Peterson who is sitting on death row! You may recall that he was convicted of first degree murder of his wife and second degree murder of his "UNBORN" son.

Shame on you, Dr. King. You call compassionate care, killing a child prior to their first breath? Despite all of your medical education and experience you are still not qualified to make God's decision on whether a child should live or die. Are you saying with 100% certainty that a child with a "birth defect" will definitely die after 40 weeks of gestation? You are providing false information to your already vulnerable patients. Have you ever heard of hope, faith, prayer and advanced medical technology? Have you suggested a second opinion to your patients? I am a realistic woman, in the medical profession who happens to be pregnant at this time. I am glad I did not chose Froedtert or you as my doctor.

Mary E, until you tell me that you are anti-war, support health care for all children, support equal education for all children and oppose the death penalty, you are just another anti-abortion activist, not pro-life as you claim.

Ah, Mary – At the risk of stepping on your toes, I must report two things that I’ve learned during my 71-year stay on this planet:

1) Those who dine in restaurants should have earlier functioned for at least a month as a waiter or waitress. My own experience dictates that, in that case, patrons would treat wait staff with far more respect, dignity, and appreciation than is now the case.

2) Those who are wont to speak of “the miracle of life” should be the parent or guardian for one full year of a ten-year-old child who has the mental capacity of a six-month-old. My neighbors, who find themselves in that situation, have told my wife and me of what their home life is like. With their other two children. [I have thus gained a kind of “theoretical” appreciation of their circumstance.] Nearly every hour of every day. That constant, difficult supervision. The changing of diapers every other hour. The “keeping him away from things” hour after hour, isolating that child in a locked, nearly empty room at night so that his parents can get limited sleep. And still go to work, alternately. So please do not gainsay Dr. King or dictate to all prospective parents what they must properly do. Unless, of course, you yourself have gotten a full measure of experience that should be required of anyone who presents that uplifting, Christian, pro-life position: albeit “in absentia,” far distant from the needs of that profoundly needy child. Who needs to be kept away from things. Are you now watching him, Mary?

On a happier note, I speak for everyone in wishing you a safe and uneventful pregnancy, with the guidance from the likes of Dr. King. And, of course, we all hope that your newborn will be happy and healthy. Judging from the spirit of your contribution, you will be a wonderful mother.

Those of us who are sufficiently long of tooth will remember “The Phil Donahue Show”. I remember it with fondness, because it often offered both serious discussions – conversations – and rather silly, light-hearted moments: times when we viewers could laugh at ourselves.

Imagine a one-hour program wherein, say, Niels Bohr and Max Planck present differing views of the structure and behavior of the atom.

Discussions like that oft sailed well over my empty head and, say, its scant background in physics. Still, some of the banter would be more-or-less intelligible, and we viewers would get a helpful, macroscopic introduction to an important, arcane subject-matter. And, merely by listening and pondering, we might become inspired to take a class in atomic physics or to read up on the subject.

But the wonderful, light-hearted moment of each of the Donahue shows came at its end. When the members of the audience were asked to raise their hands. To vote! So as to indicate (in my imagined case) how many “agreed with Bohr” and how many “agreed with Planck”.

Delightful! American democracy at its finest!

It was always a sublime time when lots of people, in-off-the-street, were able to flatter themselves by casting votes. You know: to decide who is correct.

One of the delightful aspects of our post-modern time seems to be that, given any subject-matter, (1) everyone is entitled to “their” (or is it “thier”?) opinion, and that (2) all opinions are equi-valuable. Otherwise put: it somehow gets assumed that know-nothings (like me, in physics) always deserve a seat at the same table with physicists who are know-lots-of-things.

Ah, America! Our wonderful land of equality.

Still, some of us might want to regress to an earlier, more innocent, time: when the concept of Expert Opinion had robust, distinctive meaning and appreciation. When we would sit back and listen, mute, to the tutored positions of the likes of a Dr. King.

GJ2016, Remember he claims to have been a teacher of mathematics and philosophy or something like that. So he had summers off to enrich his viewing or brush up on his chosen field or sleep or golf or have another job.

da bee - Today at 8:40 AM:"Those of us who are sufficiently long of tooth will remember “The Phil Donahue Show”. I remember it with fondness,"*********************I never would have guessed that you were a fan of Phil Donahue. Although he is off the air I'm sure that "The View" has filled this void in your life.